Yesterday evening, I saw an independent pro-Cuccinelli TV ad on the NBC29 5 o'clock news in Charlottesville.
Produced by something called the "Conservative Campaign Committee," it praises gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli as a "Conservative Rebublican."
You read that right: "REBUBLICAN."
With friends like these, who needs Purple PAC?
 |
| Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton |
District 1 Terry Kilgore*And please -- don't get me started on how I have received fund-raising appeals from some of these unopposed candidates. (What do they need money for?)
District 4 Ben Chafin
District 5 Israel O'Quinn*
District 8 Greg Habeeb*
District 9 Charles Poindexter*
District 11 Onzlee Ware*
District 15 Todd Gilbert*
District 20 Dickie Bell*
District 24 Ben Cline*
District 25 Steve Landes*
District 26 Tony Wilt*
District 27 Roxann Robinson*
District 28 Bill Howell*
District 36 Ken Plum*
District 39 Vivian Watts*
District 46 Charniele Herring*
District 48 Bob Brink*
District 52 Luke Torian*
District 54 Bobby Orrock*
District 56 Peter Farrell*
District 57 David Toscano*
District 58 Rob Bell*
District 59 Matt Fariss*
District 61 Tommy Wright*
District 62 Riley Ingram*
District 63 Rosalyn Dance*
District 64 Rick Morris*
District 66 Kirk Cox*
District 70 Delores McQuinn*
District 72 Jimmie Massie*
District 73 John O'Bannon*
District 74 Joe Morrissey*
District 76 Chris Jones*
District 77 Lionell Spruill, Sr*
District 79 Johnny Joannou*
District 80 Matthew James*
District 81 Barry Knight*
District 83 Chris Stolle*
District 89 Daun Hester*
District 90 Algie Howell*
District 91 Gordon Helsel*
District 92 Jeion Ward*
District 96 Brenda Pogge*
District 97 Chris Peace*
District 99 Margaret Ransone*
General Assembly hopeful Laura Delhomme 'thrilled' to share ticket with Sarvis
Former NM Governor Gary Johnson talks about shutdown, surveillance, and Sarvis
JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato
Larry Sabato discusses Cuccinelli, McAuliffe, Sarvis in 2013 election
Virginia Film Festival to include documentaries on Kennedy, Nixon, Santorum
Robert Sarvis visits Charlottesville, talks about shutdown, health care, polls
TV star Tina Fey argues for importance of the arts at University of Virginia
Historian Jesse Walker discusses birtherism, trutherism, and AIDS conspiracies
Author Jesse Walker discusses political paranoia and conspiracy theories on 9/11
Congressman Robert Hurt expresses 'grave concerns' over potential Syria war
Congressman Bob Goodlatte 'skeptical' about U.S. military intervention in Syria
Virginia candidates gather in Buena Vista to launch campaign season
Two former Virginia governors assess 2013 gubernatorial campaign
GOP Senate candidate Shak Hill thinks government is 'overreaching'
Virginia LP governor candidate Robert Sarvis will push for liquor-law reform
Heritage Foundation's Matthew Spalding assesses the Calvin Coolidge revival
Attorney General Cuccinelli calls Charlottesville ABC sting operation 'overkill'
Charlottesville civil liberties lawyer assesses 2012-13 Supreme Court term
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
Six Virginia Libertarian candidates advance to 2013 general election ballot
Journalist Christian Caryl investigates Boston's 'lone-wolf' Tsarnaev brothers
GOP candidate Ken Cuccinelli says no to including Libertarian nominee in debates
Former Congressman Tom Davis comments on IRS scandal with warning for GOP
GOP lieutenant governor candidate E. W. Jackson 'certainly used marijuana'
Seven candidates seek Virginia GOP's nomination for Lieutenant Governor
Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe hosts campaign kickoff event at PVCC
James Robinson discusses 'why nations fail' at George Mason University
Charlottesville Republicans present two City Council candidates for 2013
Current politics has Nixons but no Eisenhowers, says biographer Jeffrey Frank
Veteran journalist Evan Thomas draws contrast between Obama and Eisenhower
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation
Moving Picture Institute announces first annual Liberty in Film Awards
Breaking: Ex-prosecutor Steve Deaton enters Commonwealth's Attorney race
Virginia governor hopeful Tareq Salahi is 'pro-same-sex marriage,' pro-hemp
Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue
2013 Charlottesville voters may have historic election for constitutional posts
Rutherford Institute asks local lawmakers to speak out against drones
Governor McDonnell, President Obama proclaim 2013 'Religious Freedom Day'
Steve Forbes makes the moral case for free markets and free people
 | |
| Paramount Theatre, Charlottesville |
Boosting turnout to put McAuliffe in the governor’s mansion is only part of the agenda for the longtime friends and political allies. The other is to hold up Clinton’s presidency, particularly his focus on creating jobs and reaching across the aisle, as a model for what McAuliffe hopes to accomplish as governor.McAuliffe has stopped in Charlottesville several times while campaigning this year, including a visit to Piedmont Virginia Community College on May 6 as part of the official kick-off for his bid for governor.
 |
| Hillary Clinton at the 1996 Democratic National Convention |
Ford did not meet either of the Clintons until after Bill's inauguration in 1992, but he admired Hillary (somewhat begrudgingly) and predicted she could be the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004 or 2008. (Ford did not have the prescience to see the formidable challenge HRC would face in Barack Obama. At Ford's death in December 2006, Obama was barely on the national radar screen, much less Ford's own.)... he and Hillary were polar opposites ideologically, and he wasn't sure she would be a particularly appealing candidate if she ever ran for the White House.When Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, Ford thought it was a cynical move to give her a stepping-stone to the presidency, but he also thought it would backfire on her. "Truth is," he told DeFrank, "that's a handicap to her."
But those first encounters [at the Fords' Colorado vacation home] convinced him she had the emotional toughness for the job:
"I learned this: she's stronger and tougher than he is," he told me in 1994. "When she takes a point, you're gonna have to be damn sure you're well informed, because she won't compromise as quickly or as easily as he. She's very bright, she's strong, and I think he defers to her. When she gets her dander up, she ain't gonna roll over."
"The Republicans will make a mistake if they think she is gonna be a pushover. She is a tough, knowledgeable,articulate lady. On the other hand, her toughness in the political arena may not be a big asset. She obviously wants to stay in the political spotlight."Obviously, Ford was wrong about 2004 but he was right about 2008 -- 2016 was beyond the scope of his predictions in 2002, of course.
By 2002, he was certain Hillary had already decided to make a presidential bid:
"I'll make this prediction, as long as this is off the record. I'll gar-antee [sic] you, either in 2004 or 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a candidate for president. [And] I wouldn't rule out Hillary in 2004, I really wouldn't."
Asked if Hillary would be formidable, he replied that her nomination by the Democrats was a foregone conclusion: "Hillary is gonna be on the ticket in '04 or '08, one or the other, and you can write that down."I have to wonder whether Ford heard that joke making the rounds in the 1990s, which went something like this:
Why was he so sure Hillary was running?
"Because she has unlimited ambition. When you look at her record, she's a bona fide liberal with unlimited ambition.
"You look at her track record. She went to Arkansas and married Clinton because she saw in him a way to get national recognition 'cause she thought from the beginning he would be a candidate for president and she would get to be president. There's nothing in her track record, Tom, which shows any [inclination] to stay in the background."
Bill and Hillary were driving in the countryside when they stopped for gas. The gas station attendant smiled and said, "Hello, Hillary, it's been a long time."In any case, DeFrank also noted Ford's doubts about Hillary's electability as a presidential candidate.
Curious, Bill asked her who he was.
"Oh, that's an old boyfriend of mine. We were once engaged to be married."
Bill chuckled and said, "Isn't that interesting! If you had married him, you'd be the wife of a gas-station attendant."
"No, Bill," Hillary said. "If I had married him, he would be President of the United States."
... he thought she'd have trouble getting elected because of all the personal and political baggage she'd be toting.(After 20 years, would Hillarycare be more popular than Obamacare?)
"It depends on the public sentiment in the years out [at the time]. Of course, she's very vulnerable -- she was the mastermind of that terrible health care program which she tried to sell. So that would always be a liability for her."
His Republican favorite was still Rudy Giuliani. "I think Giuliani is an electrifying guy. He's a great speaker. He's had a good record of winning in New York City, and he can be tough.""What else was happening in the country" turned out to be the operative phrase in that speculative paragraph.
Ever the political junkie, the House minority leader who used to travel 250 days a year boosting Republicans said he was relishing a head-to-head confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Rudy. For years he'd been telling me Hillary was consumed by ambition, was intent on running in 2004 or 2008, and that despite her political baggage -- and her husbands -- would make "a darned good candidate."
"That would be a great contest between Hillary and Giuliani." He wasn't sure who would win -- it would depend on what else was happening in the country -- but he thought Giuliani had the edge.
Having previously thought that all of my theatre reviews from the late 1990s had been posted here for archival access, just this week I uncovered a piece that had been inaccessible because it had somewhat mysteriously been converted into an old WordPerfect format.
Yesterday I found an online resource that will convert text documents from one format to another and -- ta-dah! -- I have a review of the 1997 joint production by Washington's Arena Stage and Arlington's Signature Theatre of Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine's Sunday in the Park with George.
So, for the first time on line, here is my May 1997 review, which appeared in the Metro Herald under the headline, "Sunday Sings!"
Like most Sondheim musicals, Sunday is not for everyone. For Sondheim fans, however, it is bedazzling. The intimate setting of Arena's Kreeger Theater is far superior to the larger auditoriums in which earlier Sunday productions have been staged. Sondheim's sophisticated lyrics and intricate melodies and counterpoints are far more easily heard in such a venue.
The second act focuses on another artist, also named George, who may be the great grandson of the first act's George. At least his grandmother, Marie, insists that this is so. Act II's George also works in a new medium, but his primary challenge is raising the money to pursue his art. Tired of criticism that he has lost his way, that his work is no longer new or creative, he travels to France to visit the island of La Grand Jatte. There, he encounters his (perhaps?) great grandmother, Dot, who counsels him to "move on."
The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent. Drawn from the professional ranks of New York, regional, and Washington theatre, this cast includes a number of Arena and Signature veterans. |
| Robert Sarvis in Charlottesville |
In July, the Center for Public Integrity reported on the formation of a new, libertarian political action committee that aims to support libertarian (and Libertarian) candidates around the country:The only major difference in the text that I reported from what ended up in the TV commercial is that it no longer lists Brad Smith as treasurer in the disclaimer. Instead, it somewhat mysteriously features a photograph of Joey Coon on top of the disclaimer, without naming him.
A super PAC quietly formed this spring by a prominent libertarian has rushed to a quick fundraising start thanks to a small network of wealthy, like-minded donors.
Purple PAC, a super PAC led by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith and Cato Institute founder Ed Crane, raised $575,000 from the time the group launched in early May through the end of June, new FEC filings show....
Smith, who currently serves as the chairman of the anti-campaign finance regulation group Center for Competitive Politics, said Purple PAC plans to make independent expenditures promoting “freedom-oriented” candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
These are viewpoints Smith says a large number of voters hold, although they have little influence in Washington.
“Swing voters don’t feel that either of the major parties is representing them,” Smith said, adding the group intends to focus much of its resources on battleground states, as its name suggests.
Now Virginia Politics on Demand has learned that Purple PAC is independently planning to purchase air time on radio (and perhaps television) in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis, the nominee of the Libertarian Party.
The proposed script of the ad reads in part:
Virginia, we have a rational choice for Governor.
Why choose between an ethically challenged, socially intolerant conservative and an ethically challenged, big government liberal?
Robert Sarvis, entrepreneur, libertarian.
Social tolerance and lower taxes: Virginia's future.
Send a message on November 5 and vote Sarvis for Governor.
(Paid for by the Purple PAC, Brad Smith, Treasurer.)
The Purple PAC's address of record is in Falls Church, Virginia, so it should come as no surprise that its first major expenditure should come on behalf of a candidate in the Commonwealth.
VPOD reached out to the Sarvis campaign, which had no knowledge of the potential Purple PAC ad buy.
"Both the Republican and Democratic candidates are right about each other," said Ed Crane, President of the Purple PAC. "Ken Cuccinelli is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties. Terry McAuliffe is a big government liberal with little respect for economic liberties. Both have been engulfed in scandal. Fortunately, Robert Sarvis offers an alternative, an agenda grounded in free markets and social tolerance."The news release notes that the commercial can be seen on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/77629652. It has not yet shown up on YouTube -- where, I'll assert, more people would see it than they would on Vimeo.
He added that Virginia voters need to send a message to both political parties. "Pollster John Zogby has found that 59 percent of voters surveyed answered 'yes' to the question 'Would you define yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?'" said Crane. "It's time that the two major parties made room for those voters - a majority of the electorate - or risk losing them altogether."
 |
| Robert Sarvis speaks to students at UVA |
“You know, I understand because I've been in the position of running debates, but when I turned down a third-party candidate it was because he was nowhere near the ten percent level.”
Sarvis, he pointed out, “has been over the 10 percent level in a number of surveys and they all have a margin of error.” He was showing an average of 9 percent on the day the debate decision was made.
“I've got news for you: there's a two or three percent margin of error and that suggests that he could just as easily be over 10 as under 10. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an outcry that he's been excluded from the debate.”
Kyle Butler, a second-year math and economics major, said the national debt could give the party the push it needs, as slavery pushed the Republicans to the forefront in the 19th century.
The question is, how long will it take? Butler said he’s not sure.
“It’s really hard to tell,” Butler said. “When people see that debt is a real problem and they acknowledge it.”
Dylan Brewer, a fourth-year student majoring in economics and foreign affairs, said that moment is years away. But he’ll keep voting Libertarian with the hope that the party will gain momentum – and people will have a viable third option on Election Day.
“A lot of people have a false sense that voting is about picking the lesser of two evils,” Brewer said. “I don’t think that embodies the democratic spirit.”
The same night that Robert Sarvis spoke at UVA, his wife, Dr. Astrid Sarvis, posted on YouTube an impassioned plea for including her husband in the final gubernatorial debate. The video quickly went viral (relatively speaking) and as of this writing, it has been viewed almost 6,000 times with 183 likes (and one dislike).
There were, perhaps, only two scholarly articles published in limited-circulation journals of opinion in the twentieth century that stimulated debate and discussion far outsizing the usual readership their authors and editors might have expected.
One was George Kennan's "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," based on his "long telegram" from Moscow and published pseudonymously in Foreign Affairs in 1947. The other was Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History?," which appeared in The National Interest in 1989. (You readers might be able to suggest other articles with similar reach and controversy; feel free to name them in the comments section, below.)
The phenomenon that was "The End of History?" was described by James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine in October 1989:
Within weeks, "The End of History?" had become the hottest topic around, this year's answer to Paul Kennedy's phenomenal best seller, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." George F. Will was among the first to weigh in, with a Newsweek column in August; two weeks later, Fukuyama's photograph appeared in Time. The French quarterly Commentaire announced that it was devoting a special issue to "The End of History?" The BBC sent a television crew. Translations of the piece were scheduled to appear in Dutch, Japanese, Italian and Icelandic. Ten Downing Street requested a copy. In Washington, a newsdealer on Connecticut Avenue reported, the summer issue of The National Interest was "outselling everything, even the pornography."
"Controversial" didn't begin to cover the case. Unlike that other recent philosophical cause celebre, Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind," Fukuyama's essay was the work of a representative from what is often referred to in academic circles as the real world. This was no professor, according to the contributor's note that ran in the magazine, but the "deputy director of the State Department's policy planning staff."
There is little evidence that these nuances of democracy are understood by current communists seeking reform. Pipes pointed out that “the liberalization of the Soviet Union is an extremely superficial phenomenon.” He said that his conversations with reformers in Moscow showed him that they don't understand what liberalism really involves.
My long-ago colleague and collaborator at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Peter Wehner, has an insightful and instructive article posted at Commentary magazine, headlined "Why Tone in American Politics Matters."
He points out that, as personally satisfying as combativeness in politics may be, it seldom paves the path to electoral victory. (I'd add that it seldom leads to legislative success, either.)
Looking at history and at current conditions, Wehner notes that American voters are non-ideological by their nature, and that is why one's tone matters as much as, if not more than, one's stated positions on policy issues.
"The willingness to fight for a cause is often an admirable thing," he writes,
and many of us were drawn to politics in large part because of a desire to advance a set of convictions. That effort elicits opposition, which in turn leads to clashes. That is the nature of politics in a republic and something that can’t (and shouldn’t) be avoided. Politics ain’t beanbag.This is a message worth repeating -- and worth scrutinizing, for that matter -- but above all, it's a message that should be taken to heart by activists and candidates alike.
But in choosing to fight, one needs to pick the most favorable terrain possible–and even then (and whenever possible) to wage battles with affability, a touch of grace, and in a manner that projects steadiness and reasonableness. Winsomeness, equanimity, and a moderate temperament (which is different than moderate policies) are what most voters are looking for in candidates–especially from people who have strong philosophical convictions. It’s a mistake to assume that in order to be principled one has to be alienating and agitated.
(This article appeared originally on Virginia Politics on Demand on July 1, 2013.)
 |
| Arthur Herman |
Industrial goods needed by the military – airplanes, ships, weapons, and Jeeps – came about because, even before Pearl Harbor “the military learned it was best to let business and manufacturers handle it themselves,” and that production should be decentralized, Herman said.When I commented that some of the real-life figures he profiled in his book reminded me of characters out of an Ayn Rand novel like The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, he agreed.
“They learned that minimal control from Washington -- or even from the military services -- usually ended up getting products on time,” he explained, and “at a continually lower cost as well.”
That, he said, “was really the key ingredient in the whole wartime production effort,” the fact “that the manufacturers and producers found ways to constantly roll the costs down."
This became, he said, "a huge boon not just for the American military, really giving us the tools to win World War II," but also a "huge boon to American business and industry because they became leaner, more efficient operating organizations as a result of the wartime effort.”
“What Ayn Rand understood,” he said, “and one of the lessons that you get from her work, which is in some ways is reflected in this book, is that what the arsenal of democracy was really all about wasn’t ships and tanks and planes, any more than national wealth or an economy is about oil wells and gold mines and factories and industrial output or goods and services.”Herman told me that one of the surprising things he learned while doing research for Freedom's Forge was how many people on the home front sacrificed their lives to the war effort.
Rather, he explained, “what it’s really about is creativity. It’s about the creativity of the human mind. It’s about vision. It’s about leadership and problem-solving.”
Throughout its history, he noted, American business has “been really at the forefront of all of those aspects. That’s what drives American business. That’s what drives American civilization.”
“The most interesting statistic, stunning statistic that came out of my research was that in 1942, as this war production effort is going on, the number of Americans killed or injured in war-related industries surpassed the number of Americans in uniform killed and wounded in action in the war by a factor of 20 to 1,” he said.Another thing that people might find surprising is that the industrial war effort began long before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
The civilian sector of “what we call the Greatest Generation were [not] just sitting at home or just comfortably handling jobs while people in uniform were out risking their lives at sea and on land and in the air,” he said.
To the contrary, he explained, war production was “incredibly dangerous work. It involved enormous sacrifice from lots of people, including business executives. One hundred eighty-nine General Motors senior executives died on the job during the war.”
In fact, “the war production effort was well underway well before Pearl Harbor,” Herman pointed out.That 18-month jump on the "official" start of the war gave both military and civilian leaders a good learning curve
“As I explain in the book, it really began in the summer of 1940 when Roosevelt realized war is going to come” and that he had to get the country ready for it,” so FDR called “Bill Knudsen, president of General Motors, and says, how do I do it?”
With the system that Knudsen put in place, with Roosevelt’s blessing, Herman continued, “far from being caught off guard, we had gone from a standing start to a wartime production that was fast approaching that of Hitler’s Germany. A lot of people don’t realize that but this is in fact what American industry could do.”
“starting in the summer of 1940,” Herman said, and “what the military learned was it was best to let business and manufacturers handle it themselves.”While it may be common knowledge that some of the biggest pieces of war equipment were manufactured at the Newport News shipyards and similar facilities on both coasts of the United States, some vital items were made in central Virginia -- even in Charlottesville factories.
The War Department, he explained, and President Roosevelt himself “learned that minimal control from Washington or even from the military services usually ended up getting products on time -- getting the tanks and planes and ships built -- at a continually lower cost as well”
The “key ingredient” of wartime production, Herman said, “is that the manufacturers and producers found ways to constantly roll the costs down, so it was a huge boon not just for the American military, giving us the tools to win World War II, but it was also a huge boon to American business and industry because they became leaner, more efficient operating organizations as a result of the wartime effort.”
One was Ix Mills, located where the Frank Ix building still stands south of downtown.Freedom's Forge is a great read. Far from a dry recitation of economic facts, the book offers compelling character profiles of otherwise unknown leaders. It shows how personality conflicts can affect the course of history and demonstrates that free enterprise can be beneficial even when -- or especially when -- the country is at war, and that efforts to direct the economy from Washington are usually (if not always) counterproductive.
During the war, he said, Ix Mills “moved from making commercial textiles to making parachute cloth. They really became the center of the parachute cloth making for the Second World War.”
The soldiers “who jumped on D-Day” as portrayed in Stephen Spielberg’s film, Saving Private Ryan, as well as the “airmen who had to jump out over Germany and at sea during the Second World War were using Charlottesville-produced parachutes.”
The other Charlottesville company that Herman discovered during his research was Southern Welding, which “made various kinds of iron piping and steel tubing. During the war, they shifted to making the steel tubing for aircraft, to contain all the electric lines and so on in B-24s and B-25s. What they also did, and their real breakthrough, is they developed the parts for arrester gear on navy aircraft carriers.”
The arrester gear allowed planes to land on the carriers without being pulled apart by a braking mechanism.
“Southern Welding, here in Charlottesville, developed the parts and manufactured the parts that went on aircraft carriers all across the Pacific. In fact, at one point, Charlottesville-made arrester gear and tailhook gear was on 43 separate aircraft carriers during the Second World War.”
(This article appeared originally on Virginia Politics on Demand on June 25, 2013.)
Coby Dillard has already summarized what the U.S. Supreme Court did, and did not, do in its ruling Tuesday morning in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, in striking parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as reauthorized by Congress in 2006).
What I would like to explain is what practical effect this will have on voting in the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of the nine states covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice for virtually all legal and regulatory changes in voting procedures and elections.
With a few exceptions, all counties and cities in Virginia must seek permission from the federal government before making any changes in the way they conduct elections. The most recent exception is Hanover County, which was "bailed out" of the pre-clearance requirement, as explained in a news release posted by the Department of Justice on Monday:
The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with Hanover County, Va., that will allow for the county, a covered jurisdiction under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to bail out from coverage under these provisions. Bailout will exempt Hanover County, along with the town of Ashland, from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court....The bail-out process has always been an option for localities covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but it is expensive and time-consuming and requires the attention of numerous officials from the Electoral Board to the city or county attorney. The Electoral Board in Charlottesville (on which I serve) has considered applying for a bail-out several times over the past few years, but the expense -- the equivalent cost of a general election, or more -- plus the fact there was no guarantee of success deterred us from initiating the process.
“In the department’s view, the county has met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the county as well as information gathered during the Department’s independent investigation,” said Matthew Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate the county’s cooperation in the resolution of this matter.”
(This article appeared originally in the New York City Tribune on March 16, 1990, under the headline, "The Poverty of 'Development Economics' in Africa." It has not previously appeared on the World Wide Web.)
“The healing of organisms,” she says, “including the organisms known as economies – is not at all the same as the metamorphosis of organisms, the conversion of them into something different.” Since the growing development industry of the 1950s and 1960s insisted on calling its projects “mini-Marshall Plans” and the like, disappointment was inevitable. This disappointment came at a high prices, as well.
